asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how far his policy of achieving a price of £18 cwt to beef producers is falling short of this figure in the markets of the southwest of England.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he proposes to take to ensure at once to beef producers the minimum price of £18 per cwt promised by him on 17th July.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the condition of the livestock industry.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will induce forthwith a scheme guaranteeing minimum market prices for beef pro- ducers, in order to prevent a decline in breeding stock.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on Government help to the beef producers.

In view of the number of questions about the beef situation I will, with permission, answer this question and Nos. 6, 10, 11 and 14 together and give a longer reply than is usual.

The present low prices for fat cattle are the result of heavy marketings which are one-third higher than a year ago. Some of these cattle are of poor quality and are being slaughtered prematurely because of recent wet weather and anxiety about fodder supplies during the winter. Although there has been some improvement in auction prices in the last few days, the situation remains serious.

In my speech during the debate on the Gracious Speech last week I described the measures the Government have taken to safeguard the future supplies of beef. More than £150 million of support is being given to beef producers this year. The maximum support given to beef producers in any previous year was £80 million, in 1970–71. The additional £100 million recently awarded to the dairy sector will also help to ensure a continuing supply of calves for beef production.

I am conducting an urgent survey to find out how much winter fodder is available and where it is. When we have established the facts we shall consider whether any further assistance could usefully help to distribute fodder supplies to those areas where it is most needed.

I am also considering with my colleagues the problem resulting from the importation of Irish cattle. I must point out, however, that this is a traditional trade and the greater part of these cattle are imported as stores for further fattening by farmers in this country. The numbers imported for immediate slaughter are only a very small percentage of our total weekly slaughterings of cattle.

The real concern at the moment is the I described last week the changes needed need for an assured return to producers, in the beef régime to bring this about. We all recognise the seriousness of the present situation and I shall do all I can to get urgent action to this end at the Council of Ministers' meeting on 18th November.

Will the Minister now accept that he has misled and deceived the British beef farmer, particularly in his promise of £18 per hundredweight? Will the Minister now recognise that this is particularly cruel in view of the situation that the beef farmers are experiencing, and will he now use the intervention guarantee in some form or another, or bring in an immediate beef guarantee?

May I say that it used to be "Good old Fred"; it is now "Fred, who has misled the beef producers of this country."

I cannot accept that. I am bound by the Community. The Conservative Government decided to end the guarantee. The Conservative Party is bound by the Community, and one of the Conservative Party's shadow No. 2s on agriculture knows full well that his party would not defy the Community. As I have said, I have decided to approach the Community not in February, but this month.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that yesterday I was given an answer on the right hon. Gentleman's behalf saying that the problems today were caused by excessive marketing and generally a lower than usual quality of animals? Is that seriously the argument put forward by the Minister? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise, even at this stage, that the beef farmers' position is absolutely desperate, and the sort of words that he used, namely, that returns should improve, are wholly inadequate?

I said that one of the reasons has been the present low prices for fat cattle as a result of heavy marketing, which is one-third higher than a year ago. Conservative Members should remember that it was their Government who asked producers to transfer from dairying to beef.

What are some of us to tell the Scottish farmers about the export of cow beef cattle?

I know that my hon. Friend is anxious about the O'Brien Report, but there are different reasons. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins), who speaks for farming interests, has next to him the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) who takes a different view. There are people in the House who believe it should be stopped. I probably have a different view, but I must come to a decision, it is true, and the House in the end will have to debate it. We must have consultations with our suppliers. My hon. Friend knows full well about the O'Brien Report. I am probably on his side on this matter, but in the end there has to be a decision made by the House.

Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman has been baffled in Brussels and hoodwinked in Luxembourg by the Europeans? Even if he had the desire, he has not the ability to help British beef producers at this moment.

Will the Minister look into the question of large multi-national meat companies which own slaughterhouses in many of the best parts of Britain and which, for weeks, have excluded homegrown beef and are slaughtering only Irish beef imports?

Yes, I shall. I give that assurance. But in reference to my excursions to Brussels and Luxembourg, may I say that I believe I got a very good package deal? It was approved by many members of the Opposition. The hon. Gentleman knows that. It gave the dairy farmers the biggest award that they have ever had.

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the money being paid out under the beef premium scheme, which my right hon. Friend introduced in all good faith, is not reaching the producer whom it was originally intended to help? Will he be good enough to institute an immediate inquiry into that scheme?

Secondly, on the question of fodder, which is absolutely vital to the stores' producers in Wales and the West Country, will the Minister be good enough to say how urgently this is being examined and when be can make a statement about assistance with fodder to these farmers?

Yes, the matter is being considered now. As soon as I can make a statement I shall do so.

On the question of the premiums, I accept what my right hon. Friend said. The premium system was a good system. It was approved by the farmers' unions It could be improved, which is why I am going to Brussels very soon. I shall raise the matter then.

When he is in Brussels, will the Ministers try to correct the system whereby dairy farmers are still getting substantial grants to change over from dairy to beef? It seems to me to be an anomaly in a situation in which we have a surplus of beef. That is one way in which we could save money.

Yes, I shall do that.

Does the Minister not agree now that his unilateral act to opt out of intervention in March was an act approaching almost criminal folly, from the point of view of the beef producer? We have been let down seriously. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that he spoke in the House in June about £18 per hundredweight. We have been hoping since then that he would meet that commitment, but is it not worse than that? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as reported in the Western Mail a week ago, one of his officers in Wales was saying that many farmers would do better by accepting as little as £4 rather than by keeping their store cattle through the winter? Does that not imply that he does not intend to act in the near future, when we have been pressing him to act immediately? Will the right hon. Gentleman please comment on that and take action before many of these farmers are ruined?

The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that even within the Community intervention has not worked. I thought the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends wanted to put a support in the market, in the sense that the guarantee system—[Interruption.] I much prefer that. But does the hon. Member say that what I have said is not true? One has only to examine the Community—

I have.

So have I. The right hon. Member knows full well that beef becomes a degraded product as soon as it is put into intervention. This is one of the difficulties. I would much prefer to have in the Market something different from intervention.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many fat cattle and how many store cattle have been imported into the United Kingdom from Eire since 1st August 1974.

Imports of Irish Republic cattle into the United Kingdom during the months of August to September were as follows:

Does the Minister of State agree that this situation cannot be allowed to continue? It is making our beef farmers' situation infinitely worse. Does he not agree that something must be done immediately by his right hon. Friend to stop the importation of fat cattle into this country and the paying out of the slaughter premium to them? There should be a 60-day waiting period. Does he not also agree that he should immediately start negotiations with the Irish Minister to cut down the amount of imports of stores which are using up the fodder which is in short supply? It must be done now, not next week.

We recognise the concern. The main point about the import of Irish cattle is that this it not expressly directed at the Irish situation; it is a matter of national concern. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was his Government who got rid of the domiciliary period in scrapping the fatstock guarantee scheme, which not only got rid of the assurances the farmers now seek, but took away the domiciliary period which they are now asking to be returned. I remind the hon. Gentleman also of the assurances given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales on 31st October when he said that he would see that the matter was looked into. This is being done as urgently as possible.

I claim absolutely no knowledge of agriculture, but is not it a fact that the cattle from Ireland, both from North and South—I am glad to see there is no discrimination—have already been bought by Welsh, Scots and English farmers, and this is discrimination not against Irish cattle but against people living in this part of the United Kingdom?

I wish the hon. Gentleman's candour about his knowledge of the industry was matched by similar candour on the part of some members of the Opposition. The point to be made is that the import of cattle from the Republic is carried out under the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement, and the number coming in is a small percentage of what could come in if the agreement were observed. The other factor is that imports are in line with traditional levels but higher than last year's very low figures. They represent about 5 per cent. of the current United Kingdom slaughterings.

With regard to trying to restrict this cattle trade, I have pointed out the obligations we have under the agreement which we are honouring. Further to that, were we to take steps recommended by some Conservative Members we should be in breach of the treaty obligations which were negotiated, and accepted by them, and such unilateral action would be unjustified.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Common Market rules for Italy are the same as they are for Britain, and that what the Italians can do under treaty we can do? We ask him to do the same for Britain as the Italians have done for Italy. If that involves denouncing the Anglo-Irish treaty, let it be done.

It is rather much for the hon. Gentleman to side with those discussing the taking of unilateral action when he rightly deplores some of the unilateral action which has taken place this week in the Welsh ports. The fact remains that because we are in the Common Market we can only renegotiate the changes which he seeks, and with the consent of our partners.

The Minister is right to remind the House that the average weekly shipment from the Irish Republic is only half the Irish entitlement under the agreement and is only 5 per cent. of the average British weekly slaughter total, but is he aware that, small though the Irish shipments are, they help to sustain a demand in Southern Ireland for British goods that makes that market Britain's fourth largest export market?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The number of cattle that could be imported from Ireland under the agreement is more than 600,000 and the number actually imported is a small proportion of that. I also remind the House that this shows that the problems we face with our beef are not confined to us alone, because in wanting to export the cattle in this way the Irish are doing something to benefit their market. Overall, this shows the failure of intervention not only in Ireland but elsewhere.

Although it is clear that the Irish import situation has contributed to the collapse of the beef market, will the Minister of State now answer the question that his right hon. Friend failed to answer? Was it with the authority of his right hon. Friend that his divisional officer in Cardiff, Mr. Jameson, told farmers that they would have seriously to consider whether they sold stores at £4 a hundredweight now? We have not had an answer. We must know whether that statement was made with the authority of the Minister.

I think the point is that Government policy is usually expressed by the Ministers, but, on the point made by the hon. Gentleman, we shall look into the situation.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall seek leave to raise the matter at the earliest moment on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends to take any steps to limit the imports of live Irish cattle.

We are considering the representations that were made on this subject during the debate on 31st October.

Will the Minister please understand that although farmers accept that there is a traditional trade in the import of Irish cattle they cannot understand and cannot accept the exchange of party politics across the Floor of the House? They wish for some action now. If action cannot be taken under the terms of our obligations to limit the imports, will the Minister consider some action to withdraw from such imports the subsidies that are threatening the price structure? Will he please understand that even 5 per cent. of imports at a lower price can have a grave effect on the market?

Regarding the eligibility for the beef premium, the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that when the beef premium scheme was introduced it was agreed that the beef premium would be paid on all eligible cattle imported from the Republic. In the debate to which I referred a few Questions ago, my right hon. Friend the Minister undertook to look at the matter urgently.

Does the Minister not agree that it is his duty to look after the interests of the beef producers of the United Kingdom and not be so anxious to look after the beef producers of the Republic of Ireland? Does he not agree with me that, further to the statement made by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), the beef producers of the United Kingdom are being discriminated against, in that producers from the Republic are receiving more money for their cattle than those who produce them in the United Kingdom?

I am not aware of the discrimination to which the hon. Member refers, but I am aware that this Government have done an enormous amount to help beef producers. The total amount given to beef producers since March of this year is £150 million. I need hardly refer to the predictions made by my right hon. Friend earlier in this period.

If, because of alleged cruelty, it is decided to ban the export of live cattle from this country, why is it not decided to ban the import of live cattle into this country for the same reason?

rose—

Answer!

That is precisely why I am at the Box. My right hon. Friend has given assurances about the O'Brien Report regarding the export of cattle, which I recognise has some significance in the present system of the beef market. At the same time, with regard to the possibility of banning imports, it could be a contravention of the treaty to which hon. Members committed us.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the British housewife would very much welcome the chance to eat Catholic beef and Catholic cattle rather than listen to the nonsense from Protestant bulls?

I am aware that the British housewife has catholic tastes. I am pleased to hear the reference to the housewife and the consumer, as well as the problems of the producer.

Do the Minister of State and the Secretary of State realise that what worries so many farmers and many Members of the House is the apparent lack of sympathy and understanding of the beef problem by the Ministers and the officials? This has been apparent in the answers that we have received today. In order to overcome the major objection to the importation of Irish fat cattle when the British producer is on such a low return, will the Minister consider negotiating with the Irish Government for some limitation of this importation at the moment?

I think the hon. Member will recognise that the problem goes more deeply than that. There are, of course, the problems of the fodder situation, which is being looked at. There are also the problems of the domiciliary period, which, as I have said, we are examining urgently—and the problems of the O'Brien Report are also receiving urgent attention.

As my right hon. Friend said earlier, we are looking for a new beef régime which is being negotiated urgently. Therefore, not only do people get sympathy; they also get action from this Government.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be in order for you to encourage the Minister of State to follow the practice of his right hon. Friends in grouping identical questions?

That is not a matter for me.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the recently negotiated sugar agreements.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in what way the EEC sugar agreement will affect the British consumer; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about his recent negotiations in the EEC regarding sugar.

On the special measures to ensure supplies of sugar to meet the Community's deficit, I would refer to the reply given to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) on 1st November. The cost of this sugar when refined will be far below a world market price but I cannot at this stage make a firm forecast.

On the future sugar régime of the Community, we have secured a maximum quota of just over 1·5 million metric tons at the full guaranteed price.

Notwithstanding those agreements and the outcome of the talks with the Council of Ministers in the next week or two, will my right hon, Friend give an assurance that he will seek a long-term agreement for the import of cane sugar from the Commonwealth no matter what happens in the Council of Ministers? On the question of beet sugar, will he urge on the British Sugar Corporation the need to get on with modernising its processing equipment to cater for an increased beet supply in this country, particularly in Fife, and possibly the reopening of the sugar beet factory at Cupar? If there is likely to be a shortage of sugar next year, as there may well be, will my right hon. Friend not hesitate to introduce rationing, as that would clearly be a fairer system of ensuring that poorer sections of the community got a fair share of what was going?

As my hon. Friend knows I did secure an increase in the acreage quota for beet sugar, but I am anxious to look at the position of Scotland on this issue. I am well aware of the matter that he mentioned. On the question of Commonwealth sugar, it is true that this is still a matter for the Community, and the whole question of the Protocol 22 countries, affecting the Caribbean, Swaziland and India, will be discussed very soon in the Community. We are aware of the concern and we are anxious to have a long-term agreement.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the view which appears to be that of the cane sugar refinery workers, that as a result of his negotiations their jobs are at risk?

No, I do not accept that. I think that too much alarm and despondency has been spread by certain people, for whatever reasons. I believe that the cane refiners' position will be safeguarded by the agreements reached in the Council of Ministers. I am meeting the workers concerned continually and have kept them informed throughout the negotiations.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that this is another bitter EEC pill for the British public to swallow, without any sugar to coat it? Ought he not now to try to renegotiate the Australian deal? Is my right hon. Friend prepared to meet all those involved in the refining, distributing and selling of sugar to try to sort out the mess we are in?

May I say that I took the initiative to have talks with Australia, as I have mentioned in the House. I also raised the matter in the Community. I hope my hon. Friend will appreciate that Australia would accept a deal only if it were approved by the Community. That is the position. In the circumstances, because of our immediate needs, I believe that what I did, namely, to accept negotiations endorsed by the Community and the scheme that has been announced for one year, is right in the circumstances.

Does the Minister agree that it is in the national interest for the maximum quantity of beet sugar to be grown in Britain, and for the maximum quantity of cane sugar to be imported into Britain, as distinct from the Community, if our sugar supplies are to be assured? Will he therefore press without further delay for the Community to agree to the importation of not less than 1·4 million tons of Commonwealth cane sugar to match the 1·5 million tons of beet sugar which it is hoped to grow in this country if we are to fulfil both our A and B quotas?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The answer to his supplementary question is that this matter will be discussed in the Community very soon. Our position is that we want the 1·4 million tons of sugar at a fair price to the producer. We believe that that would be the consumers' interest too. I have announced the increase in sugar beet, and I think that has been welcomed.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, according to my information, the Australians were willing to offer about 300,000 tons a year for a minimum of five years, that the price for raw Australian sugar would have been about £140 a ton, compared with the EEC price of £134 a ton, and that, allowing for the subsidy involved, there would have been no great difference in the price? In those circumstances, was he right to turn down this offer?

I think my right hon. Friend has been wrongly informed. Australia was asking us to pay a higher price than we shall pay for Community sugar. There is no question about that. The price was £180 a ton, compared with £156 a ton.

As the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement runs out at the end of next month, is it not extraordinary that the Minister should be talking about negotiating it with the Community very soon? I think those were his words. Will he assure the House that everything has been arranged, that supplies are settled, assured and fixed, and that contracts have been signed? Is that the situation?

The right hon. Gentleman must know that this has to be endorsed by the Community. I did not ask for this. This is the nature of the Community, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that full well. I am anxious that we should have the old Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, and also that we should receive the 1·4 million tons, as the right hon. Gentleman knows.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will give immediate consideration to the introduction of sugar rationing: and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now consider the introduction of sugar rationing.

I would refer hon. Members to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) on 5th November.

Is the Minister aware that both that answer and the answer given earlier this afternoon are totally unsatisfactory? Is he further aware that it is time we looked at the practical problems? We know about the long-term difficulties over agreement, but is the hon. Gentleman aware of the difficulties which people working shifts, disabled people and pensioners are experiencing in trying to get to shops early enough to get limited supplies of sugar? Finally, will he confirm that he will take this matter seriously? It has been said that it will be difficult and expensive to introduce rationing. It was not difficult with petrol. Will the hon. Gentleman at least take the necessary powers so that he can move with speed to introduce rationing if necessary?

I recognise the difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but he will have to accept that rationing does not provide a simple solution. I assure him that we are looking at the short-term problems with great care.

Will my hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend to consider that part of my previous suplementary question which asks whether he will meet the representatives of all those involved in the refining, distributing and selling of sugar to try to resolve the mystery about there being tons and tons of sugar somewhere? Everyone has sugar except the British housewife.

Let me take the first point first. We recognise the position of the refinery workers, and I suspect that no group of workers has had more frequent and direct access to a Minister than they have had to my right hon. Friend. Only this morning, two of my ministerial colleagues and I met refinery workers from Greenock.

On the hon. Gentleman's second point, there is the apparent paradox that supplies that have moved into distribution and supplies of retail packets of sugar over the past few months have been higher than in the previous year. If I were asked to make a comment, I should tell the hon. Gentleman that there are 18 million households in this country and that if only 10 per cent. of them hold a few extra pounds of sugar over a few months it can have quite an impact on the retail position.

On the question of the immediate sugar shortage, will the hon. Gentleman stop his hon. Friend the Minister of State for Prices and Consumer Protection from dealing with the problem as he did in a Written Answer on 4th November by saying:

"The public can also help by not hoarding sugar".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th November 1974, Vol. 880, c. 39.]

That has the same quality of monumental truth as saying that there would not be a water shortage if it were to rain

Will the hon. Gentleman personally and immediately read a letter that I shall send him this afternoon from a constituent who points out that she has been without any sugar for five—

Order. I do not think we need have the content of the letter today.

The fact is that more sugar has moved into distribution in recent months than in the previous year. Of course there are short-term supply difficulties, and of course they have been exacerbated by recent industrial action at Silvertown, and of course my right hon. Friend is looking into this matter very closely indeed.

Will the Minister of State realise that, for the first time since the repeal of the Corn Laws, it is possible for the British farmer to produce food more cheaply than it can be imported? Is it not a remarkable achievement by this Government to have produced at the same time extreme shortages, very high prices, very high subsidies, and ruination for farmers? Does that not demand a very high degree of incompetence, even from a Government such as this?

We have serious difficulties at present in both these areas, but they did not arise in March this year. The beef and sugar situations owe a great deal to the failure of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The right time to make proper arrangements for beef and sugar was when we were entering the Common Market.

Does the Minister accept that his complacency is in stark contrast to the experience of the housewife? Does he also accept that the vagueness of the answer given by his right hon. Friend about future supplies could well lead to rationing, and that that would be the Government's responsibility?

We utterly reject any suggestion of complacency. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Government are doing everything they can and are considering every possible measure to improve the situation.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the powers he possesses to introduce rationing of basic foodstuffs such as sugar.

My right hon. Friend has no such powers.

Would the Government consider taking such powers or, alternatively, altering their policies, as these powers may be needed unless the policies are altered? I assure the hon. Gentleman that I say this in no unpleasant terms. I have a good deal of sympathy for the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State who has had the beef rug pulled out from underneath him and who has seen the Commonwealth producers rat on their obligations to supply us at reasonable prices. May I ask him again, if he does not intend to change policies on this matter, whether he will consider taking steps to make sure that the British housewife can get sugar somewhere, because she cannot today?

The hon. Member has ranged widely. I agree with the first part of his supplementary question, but would add that rationing is a very serious matter. It would be a drastic and expensive step to take, and one which would be appropriate only in a situation in which we had a serious and prolonged shortage. That situation does not exist for any commodity at present.

Is my hon. Friend aware that unofficial rationing of sugar is now taking place in my constituency? I have evidence which I can produce to my hon. Friend of grocery concerns which are permitting only customers who purchase a specific amount of groceries to buy sugar? If he has no powers to introduce rationing, has he powers to stop this unofficial rationing?

I can understand my hon. Friend's concern about the situation which exists in some shops in his constituency. Some housewives are, of course, having difficulty in obtaining sugar at present, but we must recognise that the amount of sugar going into distribution, and which has gone into distribution over the last few months, is up on last year. What we have at this time is an abnormal demand.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many of my constituents—he knows this because I have written to his right hon. Friend about them—are demanding sugar rationing as the only fair way of dealing with this subject? Does he and his right hon. Friend accept that it is not only sugar that will need to be rationed shortly? It will soon be beef.

Does he also accept that, although the Minister of State said that the present price showed the failure of intervention—since intervention brought prices in Belgium to £22, in France to £23, in the Netherlands to £19 and in West Germany to £21, while we are getting £12 without it—farmers in this country would be delighted to accept the "failure" of intervention if it were to be introduced?

The question relates to sugar. I assure the hon. Lady that my right hon. Friend is doing everything within his power to secure adequate supplies for this country.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the possible reintroduction of operating subsidies for British fishing vessels.

I have received an application from the British Trawlers' Federation for the reintroduction of some form of operating subsidy. This poses a number of difficult questions which need to be examined in depth. I cannot anticipate the outcome.

Will the Minister bear it in mind that many of the long-term fuel bunkering contracts end in December, when the industry will be faced with the full effect of the increase in fuel prices? This will lead to ships being either sold or laid up this winter, which will mean a shortage of fish next spring, when we will also be short of meat and poultry. If the Minister does not wish to be the first Minister to introduce food rationing in peacetime, he has to do something about it now.

I recognise the problems to which the hon. Member has referred. We are looking at the matter with a sense of urgency. He will know that, after a couple of years of profitability, there are special problems this year, including fuel costs, and we shall bear that in mind.

I do not deny that confidential figures submitted by the vessel owners to the Ministry may justify some form of subsidy under the old set-up, but is the Minister aware that the public in Hull and Humberside, working on the dock, and businessmen in the city, feel there is far too much secrecy about subsidies? Is he also aware that Mr. Charles Meek, Chairman of the White Fish Authority, whom no one can doubt on the subject, has been to Hull within the last few days? He says that although there may be need for some injection of money, he is not the man to say, as the owners are saying, that there will be a multi-million pound deficit next year. He says the opposite— that there will be an upturn in the industry next year.

I recognise my hon. Friend's concern for the industry. We are prepared to receive representations not only from the British Trawlers' Federation but from any other source, including those he has in mind.

Will the Minister confirm that he has also received representations from the inshore fishing industry? Does he realise that more inshore fishermen are facing escalating fuel and gear costs on a scale which, without the capital backing of the trawler industry, they will find it very difficult to meet? Is he considering this matter with equal urgency?

Representations have been made by other authorities, but we have to take care that we consider those aspects which are national and those that are sectional. I recognise the sectional aspects to which the hon. Member has referred. If he wishes to suggest representations to us we shall consider them urgently.

When will the Minister act? The Department has had knowledge of figures from the port of Lowestoft and from one or two other ports since last June and it has done nothing. Are we to wait for months and months on both agriculture and fishing—until we have rationing by price and by quantity—before the Department takes the matter seriously? Is it a fact that the Minister of Agriculture no longer has any power within the Government, that power has been taken over entirely by the Ministry of Food, which no longer has any interest in agriculture? When will he do the only honourable thing in the circumstances, which is to resign?

I surely do not have to remind hon. Gentlemen that my right hon. Friend and this Government have been in power only since March of this year—[Hon. Members: "Too long."] Hon. Members may say, "Too long," but we have been given a resurgence of power in the last few weeks. We are pursuing the matter urgently; there are real problems which have to be considered.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current price of new potatoes.

At this time of year there are virtually no new potatoes on the market. Average retail prices of potatoes from the 1974 maincrop are 2½p to 3½p per pound.

New potatoes will not be the only thing that are not on the market. Pending next season's new supply, will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that during the coming winter there will be an adequate supply of potatoes at reasonable prices?

I think the hon. Member will be aware that there is a sensible quota system in this country for the production of potatoes. Inevitably the yields fluctuate from year to year. We are in the middle of the potato harvest, but as things stand we are confident that we should have adequate home-produced supplies from our present main crop.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has any plans to meet the TUC and CBI.

asked the Prime Minister when he expects to have talks with the TUC and the CBI on the maintenance of employment in industry.

I would refer my hon. Friends to the reply which I gave on 5th November to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton).

Now that we are mopping up some of the mess left by the last but one administration, does my right hon. Friend not agree that before he next meets the CBI he should compile a dossier of all those defaulting companies which failed to send in their returns in accordance with the counter-inflation policy of the Tory administration? Will he ask the CBI what he should do to take account of this position? Will he then—

Order. I called the hon. Member for a supplementary question. He has already asked two.

I have not quite finished.

That is for me to judge. For once, I shall allow one more very brief question.

When my right hon. Friend meets the members of the TUC will he tell them that although we failed to get the £10 million refund that was taken from the charitable sources of the trade unions, it will be restored now that we have a clear majority in the House?

In reply to my hon. Friend's question about what he considers to be defaults in relation to the Counter-Inflation Act—I presume that he is referring to the parts of the Act dealing with the Price Code—it must be a matter for the Price Commission to report upon, and for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to look into these matters.

With regard to the second question, which relates to a Finance Bill matter, I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement. [Interruption.] In case my answer was not clear, I was referring to my hon. Friend's concluding question about the TUC's £10 million. As it is obviously a Finance Bill matter, I cannot anticipate the Budget Statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Despite last month's impressive drop in unemployment figures, is the Prime Minister aware that the recent approach by the TUC to his Government about job protection reflects the growing concern not merely in this country but throughout Europe, and does he not therefore think that, however severe the limitations upon him on Tuesday, the prime aim of the Chancellor must be to keep unemployment to a sustainable minimum?

Again, without anticipating my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement, I remind my hon. Friend that in the statement on his July measures my right hon. Friend said that he would be introducing a Budget in November, and the avoidance of a lurch into unemployment would be a very high priority in his objectives.

With regard to the earlier part of my hon. Friend's question about unemployment, he is quite right in saying that the problem which we face in this country, despite recent improvements in the unemployment situation over a short period, is a world problem and it is a matter for world statesmanship to ensure that we do not lurch into a recession as a result of the world oil situation.

The Prime Minister's hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) asked for an undertaking about the repayment of £10 million to the trade unions, to which the Prime Minister replied that this was a budgetary matter. It is surely only a budgetary matter if action is to be taken. Surely the Prime Minister can give the House and his hon. Friend a firm assurance that no action will be taken by the Government to attempt to refund the £10 million?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has already made clear—and I should have remembered the fact—that in view of the decision taken by Parliament in the previous short Parliament—the minority Parliament—the Government do intend to act in this Session on this matter. But I must leave any questions on this subject to my right hon Friend the Chancellor.

In the light of the Prime Minister's remarks a moment ago about unemployment, will he inform the House whether or not it is a part of the social contract to hand over to the trade unions de facto control of the monetary printing press?

No, Sir. I am extremely surprised to hear any Conservative after the Conservative's record in prodigal printing—most of which was used for wrong purposes, which is why we are in the present mess—ask a question about printing presses.

asked the Prime Minister if he will now appoint a Minister for population matters.

My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal has discharged this responsibility since last March and he is now assisted by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office. I see no reason to change this arrangement.

Does my right hon. Friend not accept that there are many facets of this urgent problem that are not now being dealt with by the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen he has mentioned? Is he aware that there is an urgent need to train doctors and nurses to carry out these procedures? Is he further aware that there is an urgent need to educate both adults and young people into a responsible attitude to the creation of new life? Is he also aware that the work of the Family Planning Association, built up over many years, is now disappearing because of the reorganisation of the Health Service carried out by the previous Conservative Government, which makes it impossible for area health authorities to pay the FPA to act as agents on their behalf, and when they send patients to the general practitioners they are refused advice on family planning matters. Will—

Order. The hon. Lady has had four so far.

In reply to the question about the responsibility of the health service, it is a fact that in this, and in other matters the changes made by the previous Government have caused a considerable degree of chaos, which is taking time to clear up. There is no doubt about that.

On the main question of the four, my hon. Friend will be aware that, of course, the reason why we need the Lord Privy Seal is that the work in this area falls upon a number of Ministers in a number of Departments. That is why successive Governments have decided not to try to have one separate Minister with responsibility.

This morning my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, as my hon. Friend will know, made a very important speech on this subject dealing with some of the issues which she has raised, including an announcement on improved assistance in some of these matters. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will be studying my right hon. Friend's speech. If she has not got a copy of it I am sure that my right hon. Friend will gladly send her one and place a copy in the Library.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the good work done by the Lord Privy Seal within the limited range of his responsibilities has been appreciated, but is he further aware that we appear to have in the country more people than we shall be able to feed? Will he therefore ensure that we have in the House a Minister with overall responsibility for dealing with questions of family planning, immigration and emigration?

Everyone knows that the right hon. and learned Member has, over the years, pioneered a lot of the thinking on this matter and has been responsible for changes made by successive Governments.

I do not think it would be right to have a single Minister responsible for all these matters. Immigration is clearly a Home Office matter, so I do not think it would be possible to do this. In fact, the consideration that leads us to keep these matters in separate Departments is probably the main reason for my having to answer questions on it today.

I should like to thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the tribute he paid to the Lord Privy Seal. I am sure that, within it, he intended to pay a tribute to the very good work done by my noble Friend in the world conference held during the summer.

Yes.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, had the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) had his way many years ago, the great majority of Members on the Government benches would not be here today? Does he wonder whether that is the purpose of his policy?

I think that the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) was very fully answered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services a few days ago in Liverpool. I certainly do not intend to comment on any of the speeches of that kind from the right hon. Gentleman or any of his right hon. Friends. As the House knows, in my capacity as joint president of the "National Amalgamated Trade Union of Party Leaders"—all of whom may God preserve, Mr. Speaker—I am very anxious not to intervene in any of these matters.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, important though population matters are, it is even more important that we should be able to sustain the population that we have, or are likely to have, and unless we have a radical change in our agriculture and fishing policies over the next few weeks we shall not be in a position to support our population?

I fully agree with the right hon. Gentleman in expressing concern on these matters, which I think inspired a great number of the questions before I came in a few minutes ago. The right hon. Gentleman speaks very differently now from the way in which he spoke in those famous broadcasts, "Weekend with Prior", at one o'clock every Sunday. He will know how much of the chaos we inherited, both here and in the shambles in the CAP, are due to right hon. Members opposite.

asked the Prime Minister which of Her Majesty's Ministers is responsible for policies to curb inflation.

All members of the Government are responsible for carrying out our policies to curb inflation.

Will the Prime Minister tell us which of his Ministers he believes is making the most progress? Is it the Secretary of State for Industry, with his massive, expensive and irrelevant programme for nationalisation? Is it the Secretary of State for Employment, with his mythical social contract? Or is it the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose efforts are turning stagflation into slumpflation?

I thought that was very good, and made up for the great frustration the hon. Gentleman showed when he was not called yesterday.

I do not keep a league table in these matters. I recall that last April the important thing was not the performance of any individual but the fact that Liverpool won the Cup.

Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to the fact that the City financiers, the bankers, all the Press and their other supporters, particularly on the Opposition side, have long been complaining of the allegedly high increases given to the low-paid workers of this country? Will he consider the fact that the City of London, with the smallest geographical area and the lowest number of residents, is paying its chief executive officers £2,000 to £3,000 a year extra—no one can ascertain the exact amount? Which Minister would look into this grossly inflationary payment?

Now that my hon. Friend has brought this matter to my attention I shall certainly look into it. I find it rather more revealing, particularly after some of the statistical quibbles that we have had from right hon. Gentleman opposite in recent weeks, to see that the report of the Price Commission, which they set up and which operates under rules that they laid down, points out that whereas in the last three months of the Conservative Government their index, based on prenotification of price increases, showed an annual rate of interest of 23 per cent., in the three months to August that rate has been cut to 9½ per cent.

In order to cut down the element of inflation which is attributable to sugar, will the Prime Minister dispatch the Secretary of State for Trade to Australia—he did very well when he went there recently—and get him to do a deal with the Australians for 300,000 tons of sugar, which will also help employment in the sugar refining industry in this country?

I agree that my right hon. Friend did extremely well on his trade mission to both Australia and New Zealand recently. I understand that some questions on sugar have been answered this afternoon. The hon. Gentleman, none better, will know how much of the problems—not all of it, with the present world shortage—arises from the totally inadequate and humiliating terms of the Lancaster House conference and the aura à Coeur and the total failure to put it in the protocol. I am sure that he will understand that. [Interruption.] I agree that it was not an agreement. It was claimed to be. I am talking about the sugar situation resulting from the 1971 terms, which were a disgrace to this country and have caused the utmost problems for the Commonwealth which is now seeking other solutions. On the detailed question and the hon. Gentleman's concern, we have every intention of getting all the sugar that we can from Australia, either through Community arrangements or direct.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not 'intervene during Prime Minister's Questions to raise this point of order, and I am sorry for not having given you notice of it. Would you consider at the start of a new Parliament making it clear to hon. Members that, particularly during Prime Minister's Questions but at Question Time generally, those few who attempt to pose five or six questions by making short speeches will find it difficult to catch your eye in future? This might assist in getting through more Questions during Question Time.

That is certainly a valuable suggestion. I think that it would also be helpful if their colleagues would tell such hon. Members what they think of them.